🔗 Share this article

A inquiry agent at the heart of the lawsuit filed by Prince Harry and several claimants targeting the publishing group of the popular tabloid has asserted his autograph on an previous witness statement was a “fake”, the superior court has heard.

Gavin Burrows, linked to the gravest accusations of illegal data collection made by seven high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, retracted his purported confession, saying it was “completely false”.

Background of the Alleged Confession

The private eye had reportedly asserted in a 2021 witness statement that he and his associates obtained data by breaching voice messages, intercepting landline phones and placing listening devices in automobiles. He also reportedly said he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The publishing group is alleged by the group of conducting or hiring for unlawful activities such as employing inquiry agents to place surveillance equipment inside vehicles, manipulating access to confidential documents and gaining entry to personal discussions. The company disputes the claims and is contesting the lawsuit.

Retraction and Fresh Allegations

Several of the plaintiffs have stated to the court they initiated the lawsuit against the media group based on information seemingly obtained by the investigator.

Burrows had earlier disavowed his purported statement in 2023. In a recent lengthy testimonial document made on 25 September 2025, and disclosed by the high court on this week, he reaffirmed his rejection, saying he had at no time engaged in any unlawful act on behalf of the publishing group.

In the recent testimony, he stated he did “not identify” the “purported testimonial on that date”. He stated he believed it was “created by third parties”, that the autograph is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of much of the information”.

The investigator declared: “I fail to identify the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that document is a fake. A lot of it is not composed in my style of speaking. Further, the details of the testimony are largely false.”

He stated further that he had “at no time” done tasks for the Sunday paper or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one job involving the business magnate that excluded any unlawful act”.

Context of the Initial Testimony

Burrows claimed he was on strong painkillers after a serious attack, and consuming excessive alcohol, when he was approached by Graham Johnson, a whistleblower convicted of voicemail interception, who sought assistance with inquiry on phone-hacking claims against media outlets.

He was introduced to a colleague, an individual, who was identified as a legal assistant and was compensated £600 a session for counsel.

His statement indicated he was informed allegations targeting publications were likely to resolve out of court, as the papers did not want the exposure or expense of a court case, and were described to him as a “perfect scam” and a “easy money”.

The investigator, who stated he had stopped being employed for newspapers in that year, said he had informed the former journalist on numerous occasions that the publisher were not one of my employers”.

Present Legal Situation

Burrows was originally a witness for the claimants, which features Simon Hughes and several individuals, but is now the topic of debates about the possibility that he will be called as a testifier for the court case.

Antony White KC, for the defendant, petitioned the judge to authorize him to question the witness, while another barrister, for the group, made an petition to treat his testimony as rumor.

The judge allowed Sherborne seven days to determine whether he wished to seek a court order to summon the witness, and advised him if the witness gave testimony that was inconsistent with the evidence they had gathered, then he could request to treat him as “hostile”.

A further pre-trial hearing in the legal action is projected to be held before the end of the year.